At its most basic, the political spectrum consists of a line or continuum from left to right, with varying shades of opinion in between. Some people, particularly those at the far sides of the spectrum, will tend to simplify it further to be just two positions; left or right, with no room for compromise. More realistic ways of assembling a political spectrum tend to be far more complex, but the single dimensional spectrum from "left" to "right" is the most commonly used and most popular.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originated in the years following the French Revolution of 1789, when the nobility were seated on the right side in parliament meeting, and representatives of the liberalbourgeoisie sat on the left. Thus, the term "right-wing" became associated with maintaining the status quo and protecting the interests of the established elites, like the nobility, clergy and the wealthy. The "left wing" is associated with demanding progress and equality, although the extent can vary from liberals and social democrats who seek change through economic reform (while retaining a market-based system) to communists, who advocate the destruction of capitalism and collective ownership of the means of production.

Although the meanings of left and right vary between different countries, there is more than sufficient shared meaning to enable leftists in one country to affiliate with leftists in other countries and for rightists in in one country to affiliate with rightists in other countries, unless of course their countries are at war. The shared meanings that form the bases for their affiliation involve beliefs about human nature. Otherwise, they would be unable to form organizations like the Socialist International or the International Democrat Union.

The following is the classic left-to-right political spectrum that still makes a good deal of sense to many people in the United States of America and resonates strongly throughout Western civilizations.

The term "radical" has broadened in popular usage to mean extremists of either the left or the right, though (ironically) it's more often used now to describe rightist extremists. The following linear political spectrum shows examples of western ideologies and where they would fit:

There are several problems with the the left-to-right spectrum. One is that the uses and definitions of the terms vary considerably between different cultures and contexts, since they are dependent on the political and economic status quo. For example, in authoritarian countries such as the USSR or China and even in democratic countries such as Hungary, hard-liners have sometimes been described as "conservatives," while proponents of the free market were regarded as progressive reformers, essentially the opposite of how the left and right wings of a spectrum would be labelled in democratic countries the United States. "Centrism" is not so much a clearly distinguishable position in its own right, as it is always defined in the context of other positions - what counts as a "centrist" position in one country may well be considered extreme in another. The terms "left" and "right" are also meaningless for people in many non-Western cultures, simply because they lack a tradition of categorizing politicians and parties in this manner. Another problem with the left-right distinction is that it suggests a one-dimensional spectrum that is often reduced to disagreements over economic policy, ignoring the importance of social issues and freedoms.

Another common observation is that the movements found at both the far-left and far-right positions tend to have more in common with each other than they do with more moderate liberals or conservatives, since both extremes have a tendency towards radicalism and totalitarianism. The horseshoe theory contends that the left-right axis should be viewed in terms of a horseshoe curve, with the ends of the axis curving towards each other, rather than a straight line from one extreme to the other. Horseshoe theory ignores ideologies that don't fit into this narrative, notably anarchism.

Then there is also the issue of green politics, which have been espoused by literally everyone on the left-right political axis, from the far-left saying that capitalism doesn't work because we are polluting our planet, to the far-right arguing that some races pollute more than others, passing through moderates who use environmentalism as an argument for economic planning. The large scale of people using environmentalism as a way to justify their means makes it practically impossible for these politics to be classified under this spectrum.

Another problem with the left-to-right spectrum is that there are some political positions which do not fit into it. For example, right-libertarianism upholds both personal liberties (traditionally left-wing) and unrestrained economic freedom (traditionally right-wing). This hasn't stopped some right-libertarians from claiming that therefore they are centrists.

Likewise, with what is traditionally viewed as the far-right, fascism and etc, were not always right wing on the economic spectrum. Nazi Germany on the one hand was founded on white supremacy, anti-semitism and traditionalism (all right-wing ideas), but had an economic system that was to the left of "New Deal" America (distinctly left-wing), although by no means communist or even really socialist.

Some contend that a full variety of opinions can be better represented by two-dimensional diagrams where the (economic) left-to-right spectrum is balanced with another (social) axis representing a varying level of restriction on civil and social freedoms, both of which can be either left and right wing. Two examples of such a representation are the Nolan Chart and the Political Compass, where political opinions can be plotted anywhere in a square grid based on the two axes.

The Vosem chart reworks the Nolan chart into three axes: Cultural, fiscal, and corporate.[1] The two ends of each axis are sometimes labeled as "hierarchical" vs. "egalitarian."

It is worth noting that the term "economic freedom" could be considered politically weighted. Leftists might refer to it as, say, "corporate authority" instead.

Leftist is widely used in US politics to refer to socialism and anti-capitalist ideologies, although it is also often mistakenly applied to liberals, which can cause confusion and resentment, since there is a vast difference between the two groups. For anyone who studies politics with rigor, the conflation of "leftist" and "liberal" is truly infuriating; the American right-wing talking point machine refers to anyone "left of center-right" (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Al Franken), as a "far-left" politician or pundit, further confusing political discourse. Indeed, the nomenclature of US politics is so skewed as to be practically unrecognizable to anyone from outside the US.

The term far left is a label used for political movements, parties, and organizations that champion the abolition of private property and "equality of conditions", i.e. recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power. Most of these movements fall under the label of either communist (for which there are an absurd number of "subdivisions"), left-wing anarchist, or sometimes (though somewhat rarely today) socialist. Hard greens may be labeled far-left. If you hear it in American politics, bear in mind the possibility that it could be just being used as a snarl word to describe any liberal, or at least any liberal who doesn't kowtow to mainstream consensus politics in Washington.

The abolition of private property (property used to earn capital), but not personal property (property not used to earn capital).

The abolition of class society.

The abolition of the state. Marxists contend a temporary, transitional state is necessary to protect the revolution while anarchists believe all states will eventually corrupt and will never willingly give up power.

Specifically for anarchists, the abolition of all forms of unjustified hierarchy.

For all non-market socialists, the abolition of markets.

Opposition to religions, ideologies, and philosophies that promote inequality.

Internationalism, however the Stalinist idea of "Socialism in one country" caused some far-left movements to become highly nationalistic.

The best way to obtain these goals is revolution. However, some want to reform.

Automation under capitalism will cause increasing inequality as everyone loses their job. However, automation under anarchism or communism will very nearly abolish labor allowing people the free time to explore their own interests.

Like the label far right, the term is oftentimesusedinappropriately and pejoratively to movements that are not actually of the extreme left, such as:

Social Democracy - As social democrats accept the presence of a widespread market system, private property, and some degree of class inequality they are not far left. This label is even more absurd when applied to "Third Way" social democrats who are essentially centrists.

Social Liberalism - As social liberals are even more toned down than old-styled social democrats (as they do not advocate for nationalization of any business) it's really hard to see how they are "far left" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Juche - This one's actually debatable. Most scholars today believe North Korea's ideology is actually much closer to ethnic fascism than communism.

Nazism - Nazism is a form of fascism which is inherently far right. While the Nazis did enact some policies that could be seen as "left" by the US political sphere, their stance on ultra-nationalism, racial superiority, their promotion of social inequality, etc. makes them far right. One must also remember that the NSDAP means "National Socialist German Workers' Party"; while socialists and workers are far left, wingnuts like to ignore that "National" is a far right "patriotic" term in Germany. It is telling when the only party with National in its name is the neo-nazi NPD. Even the DVU, REP, pro civil movement, Die Rechte and AfD avoid describing themselves as "national", preferring terms such as "German", "republican" and "liberal" instead. Economists also rate Nazi Germany as center in terms of economic stance as its economic policy was protectionist, made with a return to mercantillism in mind and hated both communists and capitalists. One should however take note that it isn't all that different from the economic desires of the current European far right; political parties such as the Party For Freedom and Front National promote similar economic policies.

Democratic corruption does not count, only Republican corruption counts (fact!)

A liberal tends to champion liberty, individual rights and equality, although it depends on what measures are being taken to realize those rights. Due to this, liberalism can fall under many branches, some even self-contradictory; for instance, classical liberalism favors limiting government action to promote individual rights while social or modern liberalism (a.k.a. progressivism) tends to favor government action to protect individuals. Unlike conservatism, its traditional political opposite, liberalism may be against the status quo, favoring changes to what liberals perceive as a better society. Fiscally, liberals tend tend to be more in favor of market solutions as opposed to government solutions. Additionally, they are generally opposed to protectionism, corporate welfare, and tariffs, supporting free, neoliberal trade, all to varying degrees. This is what generally separates liberals from their progressive cousins, who favor more regulation and socially democratic policies. Other than that, they tend to have similar positions on social views. Like progressives, liberals are generally seen in American politics as being just left of center.

A lot of liberals believe conservatives are trying to curtail women's reproductive rights, impose religion on society, and preserve and promote corporate power and power for the historically privileged. Some liberals attack conservatives as general-purpose scapegoats for any ills of society as seen from their liberal perspective. (A lot of conservatives do make for an easy target. See Ann Coulter for just one of many examples.)

"Liberal" is a term that has been subject to vast misuse by the American public. The right often accuses anyone to the left of Sarah Palin as being a "liberal", which they use like a snarl word. They treat it as an insult, often comparing liberalism to fascism. However, this is fundamentally contradictory, as "liberal" derives from "liber", which is Latin for "freedom". Progressives, on the other hand, also misuse the term often, referring to themselves as liberals. While both liberals and progressives may share socially liberal views on most of the same issues, liberalism as an ideology favors market solutions and a strong private sector, whereas progressivism is far more regulatory and incorporates some moderate socialist policies.

Modern American Libertarianism would be considered a more radical form of liberal politics, often leaning more towards Laissez-faire than traditional neoliberalism.

Europeans typically use the term "liberal" to describe politics that draw on neoliberalism's basic touchstone of the individual operating in a free market economy, a notion similar to modern libertarianism. These liberals oppose government regulation on the free market to promote flow of goods in the market. While some might invoke "classical liberalism" rather than neoliberalism, it is important to note that classical liberal thinkers were socialists, with Mill writing an entire piece on socialism [3], and Smith's classical economics and the labor theory of value inspiring various socialists such as Ricardo and Marx.

The left-wing in Europe today, however, is closer to the American interpretation of "liberal". Most developed countries in the West are more left-wing than the U.S., with government playing a bigger role in general, handling universal health care, work vacations, and comprehensive sex education. The common accusations of socialism in the U.S. would've fallen face-flat in European ears, as several socialist leaders stand a significant chance or have won in elections. Not only this, but Europeans are frequently puzzled as to why detractors of Barack Obama commonly call him a "socialist". (See also ad hominem.)

The politics of the United Kingdom offer a prominent example of non-American political labelling. The UK Conservative Party would be called out as "liberals" by Republicans (or as "socialists" depending on their mood) in the U.S. UK Conservatives support continuing the National Health Service (NHS) while they allow abortions and same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, however, during economic recession, the party proposes spending cuts, something more in line with conservative thought in the United States. Compare the UK political party called "Liberal Democrats", a centrist group.

The term "liberal" is used rather liberally in the US, but most American liberals are advocates of social liberalism, which veers center to center-left, though it may also refer to advocates of the Third Way (if slightly to the right of social liberals) or social democracy (if slightly to their left) on economics.

Over the past few decades, the GOP has near-successfully framed it as a synonym for "socialist". This is partially due to their use of bullshit scare tactics and partially a legacy from the second Red Scare, when some people with communist sympathies, not wanting to state their affiliation openly, called themselves "liberals" or "progressives" instead. Liberalism is seen as pure evil by the Religious Right and its counterparts overseas; these groups work tirelessly to depict supporters as Satanic monsters, and to make the very word into an insult. (As a possible result of this, fewer people identify themselves as liberal compared to the numbers of self-identified conservatives and moderates, instead identifying themselves with the name of their party.)

“”...there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate capitalist class and therefore the question was, “What to do?”. The ruling class wasn’t omniscient but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would call neoliberalism.

—David Harvey, author, A Brief History of Neoliberalism

Following the rise of Barry Goldwater in the 1960s the United States began to pull towards the right. Though the socially conservative "Religious Right" would eventually swoop in and hijack the GOP from new constitutional-libertarian establishment, the shift from the 60s onward occurred on the basis of fiscal policy, free trade, internationalism, and economic freedom, made especially popular under President Richard Nixon during the liberalization of China. Key trade policies were enacted during the various administration, accompanied by a series of both individual and corporate tax cuts (although Regan did raise it on the rich eleven times).

Deregulation of markets is a fundamental practice in all forms of neoliberalism. Certain sectors of the economy saw acute levels of deregulation under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, c,. The deregulation of the tech sector that occured during Reagan's first term, for instance, led to unprecedented levels of economic growth and the rise of innovative new technologies, such as personal computers, video-game consols, various appliances, the World Wide Web. However, besides deregulation of the tech industry, the 1980s and 1990s also saw the deregulation of big banks, and it is believed that this was at part to blame for the gradual disappearance of the middle class. Especially by his second term, Reagan grew popular amongst many on the centre-left, and the influence of Republican neoliberals ultimately pulled those Democrats towards the center, such as Bill Clinton, who himself implemented liberal economic policies not too different than those of Reagan's second term. In doing so, Clinton ended up presiding over the largest economic boom in American history. This all came crashing down with the onset of the Great Recession in 2008. With the resurgence of the American left in the early 2010s, the subsequent Occupy movement, and the Bernie Sanders candidacy in 2016, this growing leftward movement began to strongly criticize establishment liberals as "neoliberals."

According to its leftwing critics, the neoliberals are strongly pro-capitalist, tend to fetishize the magical powers of "free markets" to solve all social or economic ills, and are allergic to class-based analysis or rhetoric. The liberal targets of these left critics often feel the term "neoliberal" is something that doesn't really exist except as a snarl word against them. Liberal pundit Jonathan Chait has made that argument.[6] However, this is technically not true, as the traditional "free marketers" (Reagan-era libertarians) were actually opposed to much of what the left accused "neoliberals" of doing - bailouts, corporate welfare, subsidies, protectionism, central banking, etc. To them, what the centre-left called "neoliberalism" was, in fact, "Crony Capitalism. As a result, the Occupy movement accumulated a sizeable libertarian presence, many of whom were former Ron Paulsupporters in the 2008 presidential election.

Some pragmatic free market-capitalists enthusiastically adopt the neoliberal label, and argue that "free market globalists" are the cure for what ails the world.[7] Leftists such as Sam Kriss are unimpressed, and disdainfully dismiss such neoliberal claims as being nothing more than devotion to "untrammeled ruling-class power, an end to the class-collaborationism of the post-war years and a vicious assault of the rich against the poor...fiscal austerity and the penetration of capitalist relations into every possible facet of human life."[8]

I cannot call myself a cultural conservative, because that term, hijacked by the media, is customarily used to describe a person preoccupied with such matters as the preservation of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; the defense of marriage as an institution for heterosexuals only; the promotion of premarital chastity; and the protection of cancer patients from marijuana addiction.

Conservative is a very loose term, essentially meaning only "in favour of conserving." While there are many, many types of conservatism, one essential distinction in the field of politics and society is between social conservatism and economic (or fiscal) conservatism. Although the two often go hand-in-hand, especially in American politics, they are not inherently connected, and it is quite possible to be a fiscal conservative without being socially conservative or vice versa.

Social conservatism emphasizes convention, morality (or old-fashioned notions of morality) and established roles within society and the family. Social conservatives are often, though not always, strongly religious. They support traditional gender roles, marriage and "family values" (a term with a multitude of meanings). Social conservatism is often accused of being homophobic, due to its distaste for same-sex marriage and sometimes racist and sexist to some degree because of the associations with traditional hierarchical societies in which everybody knew their place; and in the West, at least, the White, Anglo/European diaspora being regarded as the ultimate origin and standard of civilized culture. Demands for "equality" or "justice" tend to be seen at minimum as lofty, abstract proposals that are likely to change with the seasons of intellectual fashion. Disrupting settled folkways in the name of these abstract beliefs will always run afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences, while the traditions that would be changed may be sacred, and certainly are our own. They often express outrage at political correctnessthey disagree with and perceived moral decline (e.g. "Hollywood values"). Social conservatism can be extremely influential in politics; the "pro-life" movement to outlaw abortion is an example of social conservatism in action.

The problem with social conservatism is that it's directly contrary to the tenets of small, limited government and personal freedom and responsibility, and it relies on dated views in the face of changing society. Wanting the government, especially the Federal government to enact and enforce laws based around your morality directly contradicts this. There's a reason social conservatives used to overwhelmingly support the Democrats: they believed in a strong welfare state to support the public good, for example, based on ideas of Christian charity. It was only after the American Civil Rights movement circa 1965, that these same voters shifted to the GOP, creating the current contradictory cocktail of conservatives and social regressives/reactionaries calling themselves conservatives.

Economic or fiscal conservatism is also very significant politically. Fiscal conservatives support low taxation (trickle-down in particular) and free marketcapitalism with minimal regulation. This benefits the economic interests of big industries, entrepreneurs or the ruling class in some countries, at the expense of everyone else. In Europe, many economic conservatives are not necessarily socially conservative, often being non-religious and unconcerned by issues such as same-sex marriage. In America, however, the two forms of conservatism are heavily intertwined, especially within the Republican Party and its supporters. This bundling of the two major types of conservatism with each other is extreme to the extent that many conservatives cannot recognise the distinction - and see both concepts as central to "conservative values," leading to the idea that you can be all in favour of abolishing tax, deregulating the market and abolishing trade unions all you like, but if you make a single pro-choice statement, you're labelled as a RINO liberal.

You can't have a discussion about modern day conservatism, especially economic conservatism, without talking about supply side economics. Supply-side economics is defined as an economic theory which articulates that the economy could be best served by reducing barriers to supply/production as opposed to trying to raise demand. The epitome of supply side economics is the Laffer Curve, which is the precept that government revenue is equal at zero and 100% taxation. Supply-side economics is widely criticized by neo-Keynesian economists, who are in turn voraciously criticized by libertarians.

In just eight years, the Bush Administration grew the government faster and larger than any other President, with borrowed money, and demanded $700 billion more to buy up all of Wall Street's bad mortgage paper and preserve the status quo. However, when asked to boost the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by $250 million to help low-income families pay their heating bills over the winter of 2007-2008 with record oil and gas prices, Bush vetoed it as pure socialism.[11]

“”There is something inherently paradoxical about being an intellectual Conservative: a good measure of the party's raison d'etre resides in the counter-intuitive belief that ideas should be inherited and ignored, not acquired and defended. And they never take the form of convictions.

Four researchers surveyed research literature about the psychology of conservatism.[13][14] They discovered that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and other perspectives, and a tolerance for inequality. No shit. The chief psychological factors of conservatism:

Fear and aggression - an easy way to support a conservative position is to scapegoat some convenient "other" and demonise it as a threat to "civilised" values. Islamophobia is simply the current version of this conservative train of thought. Students of history may find other examples.

It is debatable whether these factors are associated chiefly with conservatism. One admitted shortfall in this study was that "little or no empirical data are available from the major communist or formerly communist countries" on this subject,[14] which made a study of communist psychology in general very difficult. However, the researchers acknowledge that these factors were also exhibited by many communist dictators, such as Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro. They respond by claiming that these men, because they resisted change while in power, "may be considered politically conservative, at least in the context of the systems they defended."[14]

In fairness to conservatives, some studies of political extremist groups have suggested that the far-left has very similar traits to the far-right in terms of their tactics and preference for authoritarianism.[15]

“”Sir, it is a well-known fact that young people are generally leftwing. It is also well-known that as people get older, they become more rightwing. It is also a fact that, as people get older, their brain cells die at a faster and faster rate. I would therefore like to propose that conservatism be classified as a degenerative disease.

The term rightism is rarely used, but tends to refer to a form of extreme conservatism that seeks to do away with democratic politics entirely. In the past, most "rightist" groups either sought a restoration of a previous monarchy, or the creation of a fascist or authoritarian regime to "undo the chaos of democracy." Because the United States has never had a monarch or a totalitarian movement, "true" rightist groups in that country have been relatively few, though the US government has helped fascists such as Pinochet come into power. Another common component of rightism, however, has not waned: extreme nationalism. Most rightist groups try to force out all immigrants and minorities. It is possible that in modern rightism this form of nationalism is the only defining characteristic.

“”Trump has changed the way the Republican Party sees the world. Republicans used to have a basic faith in the dynamism and openness of the free market. Now the party fears openness and competition...It’s not that the deals had changed, or reality. It was that Donald Trump became the Republican nominee and his dark fearfulness became the party's dark fearfulness. In this case fear is not a reaction to the world. It is a way of seeing the world. It propels your reactions to the world.

The far right or extreme right is a political label used to identify parties and movements based on fascist, racist and/or extremely reactionary ideologies. Officially those on the far right embrace the concept of the "inequality of outcome", meaning that one group is naturally better than another. This can apply to everything from absolute monarchies to Nazism, meaning that many far-rightists oppose others on the far right who have a different idea of what the ruling class should be.

Much like the term "far left", if you hear the term "far right" it's almost certain to be a slur directed at a conservative.

The label of "far right" came about in the context of the French Revolution: those who sat on the right wing of the National Assembly[19] in June and July 1789 favored an essentially unrestrained aristocracy in terms of the power allocated to them, essentially wanting to either maintain or (later) restore the old order. They also tended to be opposed to the Enlightenment and secularism in favor of more conservative religious influence in government.

From the start of the 20th century onwards more "populist" reactionary political philosophies such as ultranationalism/fascism, racial supremacy (often to a degree that was considered extreme even by the standards of the time), and politically-oriented religious fundamentalism started to overtake the increasingly unpopular extreme pro-Aristocrat agenda that made up what could be considered the former far right. To what degree there is much of a difference between them in practice is up for debate and usually changes from country to country. In the 21st century the far right in the Western world has increasingly drifted towards broadly authoritarian nativist thought, often influenced by former fascist movements.

Common opinions:

Inequality, both economic and social, between the different people - not only accepted, but actively promoted

Anti-socialism and extreme anti-communism (as in endorsing conspiracy theories surronding the subject, or commitingmassacresagainstthem), though in some cases supporting a limited welfare state and occasionally even "state capitalism"—except in the United States, where any sort of welfare (except corporate welfare, of course) is seen as communism. On the other hand in the States a number of paleoconservatives and laissez-faire types are more hostile to a welfare state and may desire to see the social safety net gutted entirely.

Nationalism, possibly including historical revisionism. More imperialist versions may however favor a world without borders instead, in that the nation encompasses all land on the planet.

Supporting family values and traditional gender roles, and is virtually always homophobic. However, this might also be inverted and some may want to abolish traditional gender roles and promote feminism and LGBT rights by demanding to expel any minority of which they claim that they are actively upholding reactionary values that prevent these rights from being established (e.g. Party For Freedom). Quite often however these people aren't nearly as progressive on such issues as the left wing or far left.

Environmentalism might be prevalent, especially in a "protection of home and soil" kind of way, though other far-right groups champion anti-environmental sentiment (climate change denial etc.). A more Christian Democratic approach to the environment ("protecting God's creation") can also be present in clerical fascism.

Reactionary beliefs, meaning beliefs that things were better some time ago (often before some major legislative change, such as civil rights laws). The "evil era" tends to be the 1960s, which were a period of great change in much of the Western World, whereas the "good old times" can be anything from the 1950s to pre-industrial times.

A far-right group without even trace amounts of anti-Semitism is rare - even in places where Judaism is rare and there isn't even Jewish immigration. Though more modern islamophobic and religious groups usually do the opposite and promote relatively aggressive forms of Zionism.

Racism - same as anti-semitism above, almost always found, even in trace amounts.

Religious fundamentalism - Religion is often very intertwined with far-right beliefs, even if said far-right beliefs conflict with their religious beliefs. However, some groups may also be radical anticlerics and perceive religious influence as endangering the secular state (e.g. most early forms of Turkish nationalism during and after the reign of Atatürk).

Conspiracy theories - The far right and conspiracy theories go together better than bread and butter.

Economically, far-right groups tend to promote mercantilism and protectionism and to oppose any free-trade agreements that interfere with it. An exception being the more religious forms, which promote distributism.

Centrism is a set of political positions that lie between the "left" and "right" wings of the political spectrum. The term is usually applied to a global spectrum of political philosophies and ideologies, not to those of single nations, as their political centers tend to differ strongly based on history, culture and the state of development. As a result, a party that might be centrist in a global sense such as the American Democratic Party, might be seen as "left" in its own national context.[note 1]

In established democracies, it is usually highly beneficial (and intellectually reasonable) for a party to occupy most of the territory in the middle of the spectrum, especially in majoritarian electoral systems, as this is where the coveted swing votes are to be found. Hence, parties often strive to occupy a center-left or center-right position, or at least try to brand themselves as such. While pure "centrist" parties have a mixed record of electoral success, advancing centrist policies to some extent is a popular strategy among parties in modern developed nations. For example, both dominant parties in Germany are so moderate as to be nearly identical. Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken such advantage of the centrist discourse that she's manipulated the political structure to benefit her most of all; discussion is less about who replaces Merkel and more about who becomes her top lieutenant or successor. During polarizing time periods, centrists tend to be attacked by both sides.

When politics was split between collectivist, statist socialism and paternalistic "family values" conservatism, centrism often manifested as an individualistic liberalism which combined belief in capitalism ("economic freedom") with support for human rights and greater personal freedom: the Liberal Party in the UK (predecessor of the Lib Dems) often took this route, e.g. playing a central role in the legalisation of abortion.[20][21] The Free Democrats in Germany are a centrist or centre-right party of similar bent.[22] Some centrist parties and politicians might endorse the Third Way, trying to harmoniously combine socialism and capitalism. This often manifests as technocracy or "evidence-based policymaking", and can take the form of a centralised, targets-fixated, and slightly authoritarian (but hopefully benevolent) managerial state, as under Tony Blair.[23] Hence centrism can range from liberal to authoritarian tendencies.

Almost all of the Pirate Parties are centrist parties with special interest in civil rights and copyright reform. However, there are a bunch of exceptions, as the Austrian,[24] Australian[25] and Italian [26]
Pirate Parties tend to be on a firmly leftist economic stance, while some Pirate Parties of northern Europe have shown some libertarian leanings. The German Pirate Party has made progressive[27] and environmentalist statements,[28] and its European MEP, Julia Reda, is vice president of the Greens–European Free Alliance.[citation needed]

Most European Green parties are leftist, but some centrists such as the British Liberal Democrats take a firmly pro-environmental stance. This may connect with their desire to be seen as the "nice party".[29] "Green conservatism" is a centre-right mix of conservatism with concern about the environment, e.g. the French centrist Independent Ecological Movement which split from Les Verts (French Green Party) because they were too left-wing.[30][31]

Also known as "fascists", "libtards", "snowflakes", and "shills", depending on who you ask, those who see themselves as being in the center of the political spectrum are, for the most part, criticized by both harder ends of the spectrum. While they do exist, in recent years, the term "political moderate" (a.k.a. centrism) has become a buzzword in the United States. The term often comes with a negative connotation, due to the United States' ethos of bipartisanship,[citation needed] which, since the turn of the twentieth century, has been growing far wider.

A prominent moderate movement that grew in the United States were that of the New Democrats in the early 1990's, after Bill Clinton, who had some views akin to traditional Rockefeller Republicanism, attracted many of Ronald Reagan's more moderate voters, which encompassed quite a bit of the slowly radicalizing GOP establishment throughout the 1980's, a process contributed to by various factors from decades earlier, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Watergate Scandal, and the Vietnam War. Many of these centrists became swing voters in various elections, such as the 2008 presidential election, which pretty much sealed the fate of the Republican Party. Now, most actual moderates, some even relatively conservative, align with the Democratic Party, and fewer with the Republicans, in some cases. Those centrists who do not are pretty much on their own.

The term "moderate" is generally used by both the left and the right to refer to those individuals who express a certain amount of skepticism towards the views of both wings, preferring instead to think analytically, making centrists the most marginalized political affiliation in the modern climate. As an insult, it instead usually refers to those who have some conservative views and some liberal views — e.g., "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal." Some are just wishy-washy. Others are actually closet extremists pretending to be moderate so they can get elected.[note 2] And some are just calculating, self-aggrandizing schemers. One could argue that, in fact, there is no such thing as a moderate, those being considered such really just being individuals who pick and choose individual policies on an ideological level rather than subscribe to any one particular side.

One reason moderate politicians aren't often trusted is that you never know which side of an issue they actually favor until the last moment. A good example is Joe Lieberman, who was in favor of extending Medicare to people aged 55-64 until it seemed that it would actually pass. Political centrism seems to be rather rare these days, despite moderate wings existing in both parties to some degree.

Political radicals and extremists tend to criticize centrists for being "sell-outs" to the enemy group that secretly controls everything, or claim that centrists are tricksters bent on oppressing the public. Rarely will these radicals actually recognize centrists, instead preferring to characterize them as the "real radicals." This becomes most obvious when political extremists fail to actually name a centrist and, if pressed, will try to pass either themselves or a more "moderate" hard-right/left/libertarian activist as a centrist.

Another common critique of centrism is that centrists will commonly invoke the balance fallacy, commonly acting as if "both sides are just as bad" just so they can hold onto their centrist credentials. This can lead to the more corrupt or extreme of two parties being elected/empowered by opportunists who are fueled by self-interest. This is especially common with Very Serious People.

Alternately, many centrists become Very Serious People, who talk about serious issues very seriously, yet fail to offer real solutions other than the status quo.

Finally, many centrists tend to disregard ideologies such as socialism and libertarianism completely, ignoring the truth value of individual claims in such philosophies.

Extremism is a catch-all term for those whose political or religious views are far from the center of a given political spectrum, with connotations of being dangerously so. It is often synonymous with wingnut. It also refers to both wingnuts and moonbats simultaneously, given that "wingnut" is sometimes specific to the far right and "moonbat" specific to the far left.

More specifically, it has been used to refer to those wingnuts and moonbats who have an "end justifies the means" mentality and are willing to use violence or other extralegal means to achieve their goals. However, it is sometimes also used to imply that said wingnuts and moonbats are criminal elements willing to use violence even when in some cases they are not.

Wingnuts and moonbats usually don't like being called extremists, although they'll happily call each other extremists. Then again, they usually don't like being called wingnuts and moonbats either.

One of the early and still insightful treatments of the subject is Eric Hoffer's 1951 book "The True Believer." Check it out (as in at your local library).

↑Global Investment and Business Center, Inc. Staff (1999). Russian Political Parties and Organizations Directory. Russian Government Encyclopedic Directory Series. 5. International Business Publications. p. 65. ISBN 9780739707548. https://books.google.com/books?id=uXoyxqGh3M4C. Retrieved 2017-06-23. "The LDPR describes itself as a centrist, pro-reform democratic party. The programme of the party calls for democracy and social liberalism. Despite the name, a widespread opinion outside of Russia is that the party's ideology is not liberal and it is often regarded, especially in external media, as an ultranationalist party."